Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on February 27, 1996 Rejection


Appeal No.: 93-21845
titled Unreleased Chairman: Mr. Lemontey

FRENCH REPUBLIC


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling:

On the appeal brought by the company Valem Mecap, limited company, headquartered 12/16, avenue de la République, 93170 Bagnolet, set aside a decision of 4 June 1993 by the Court of Appeal of Paris (25th room, section A), for:

1 / Ms. Sylvianne Thoreux Rouvier wife, residing 16, rue Paul Bert, 92100 Boulogne,

2 / Mr. Philippe Marbat, remaining 7, rue du Cherche-Midi, 75006 Paris, defendants in the appeal;

The plaintiff relies in support of its appeal, the sole means of appeal annexed to this Order;

THE COURT, in the public hearing on January 17, 1996, which were present: Mr. Lemontey, President, M. Aubert, the reporting judge, Mr. Fouret, Mrs. Lescure, Delaroche, M. Sargos, Mrs. Mark, advisors, M. Laurent-Atthalin, Ms. Catry, counselors referendum, Mr. Gaunet, General Counsel, Ms. Collet, Clerk of the Chamber;

On the report of Councillor M. Aubert, the observations of Mr. Le Prado, a lawyer for the company Valem Mecap, the conclusions of Mr. Gaunet, General Counsel, and after deliberating in accordance with law;

The unique way:

Whereas, according to the sayings of the lower courts, that April 7, 1989, Dr. Rouvier has rented without a driver, society Valem Mecap, a truck when he was led by Mr. Marbat, driver authorized was damaged in its structure as it hit an upper deck;

after return of the vehicle in the state, the company informed Ms. Valem Mecap Rouvier that in the case of a shock on the upper parts of the vehicle, the warranty of the insurer was excluded and has demanded payment of a sum of 85 816.07 francs, representing the market value of the vehicle;

that the Court of Appeal (Paris, June 4, 1993) dismissed the company Valem Mecap of this claim;

Whereas it is alleged to have attacked the decision and declared, while agreements lawfully entered lieu of law to those who do so by refusing to apply the exclusion clause warranty for damage caused by shocks to the upper parts of the vehicle, which was contained in the lease agreement signed by Ms. Rouvier, which had acknowledged having read the terms and conditions and have accepted the Court of Appeal, which found that this clause was not void, infringed Article 1134 of the Civil Code;

But whereas the Court of Appeal, which raised the first existence, concomitant with the contract, a flyer announcing, without nuances, a guarantee of vehicle damage, and second, that the clauses exclusion were embedded in a text of sixteen articles reproduced in small print in three columns, while the distributed misleading advertising encouraged customers to release their attention and that the lessor was careful not to arouse suspicion by the use of an appropriate design and the proposed supplemental insurance;

she has found that the sovereign had not been considered clause actually brought to the attention of Ms. Rouvier and his stay was unenforceable;

that the plea is therefore unfounded;

And whereas the appeal is an abuse;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Dismiss the appeal;

Society condemns Valem Mecap to a civil fine of 10,000 francs to the treasury;

condemns, and to Ms. M. Rouvier Marbat the expense and cost of performing the above;

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on Feb. 27 thousand nine hundred ninety-six.

480



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris (25th Chamber, Section A) 1993-06-04


Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on April 28, 1971 RELEASE


Appeal No.: 69-14617
Published in the Bulletin PDT M. Ancel M. RPR VIGNERON AV.GEN. Mr. Gégout Plaintiff AV. MM. CHAREYRE Defender LCIA

FRENCH REPUBLIC


ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE


On the sole ground: WHEREAS, AS STATEMENTS OF JUDGES BECAUSE THAT HAS ACQUIRED ROUSSET a car NEW EXCLUSIVE IMPORTER OF VEHICLES OF THE BRAND, THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ROYAL ELYSEES,
THAT IT WAS DELIVERED AT THE PAYMENT , a bill on the back a clause limiting SELLER’S WARRANTY to a specific period;
THAT THE VEHICLE WAS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD, WITH A VICE RECOGNIZED THE HIDDEN MEANING OF SECTION 1641 OF THE CIVIL CODE , Rousset Assign the selling company PAYMENT IN THE COST OF REPAIR AND COMPENSATION COMPENSATION FOR TROUBLE THAT CAUSE HER DETENTION OF THE CAR,
IT IS CONSIDERING ALLEGED TO HAVE JUDGES CALL accepts the APPLICATION, just because “WHEN THE THING SOLD has a hidden defect, SELLER IS LIABLE TO FACE THE BUYER, IT IS TREATED AS A SELLER OF BAD FAITH AND can not exempt, by increasing TIME LIMITATION OF WARRANTY “WITHOUT POINTED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DECISION OF FACTS AND which might justify it by simply RELY ON A presumption of bad faith WAY ILLUMINATED BY ALL REASONS THE JUDGEMENT AND not based on any TEXT,
BUT THE COURT OF APPEAL, REASONS BOTH OWN by those of the first judges, it has adopted, AFTER FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFECT IN CACHE THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1641 OF THE CIVIL CODE, AND POINTS OUT THAT “THE DEALERS MUST KNOW THE THING THAT MADE AND THEREFORE MUST MEET ALL DAMAGES TO PURCHASER IN TERMS OF SECTION 1645 CIVIL CODE, “said sovereign that the SELLER fails to prove ROUSSET THAT HAVE KNOWN AND ACCEPTED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SALE, THE EXISTENCE OF THE LIMITATION OF WARRANTY,
BY THAT GROUND ALONE, THE JUDGES BACKGROUND HAVE LEGALLY JUSTIFY THEIR DECISION
FOR THESE REASONS: DISMISSES the appeal against the Judgement of 30 JUIN 1969 BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BORDEAUX.



Publication: Supreme Court stops Civil Division 1 N. P. 143 118 The contested decision: Appeal Court BORDEAUX 1969-06-20 precedent: CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 1) 1954-11-24 Bulletin 1954 N. I338 p. 285 (RELEASE) CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 1) 1962-10-31 Bulletin 1962 N. I 457 (1) P.391 (rejection) and the case cited $ CF. Supreme Court (Commercial Division) Bulletin 1964-06-16 1964 N. IV312 p.271 (rejection) and the case cited $ CF. Supreme Court (Commercial Division) Bulletin 1964-07-17 IV N. 381 p. 339 (RELEASE) CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 1) 1964-12-01 Bulletin 1964 N. I 532 P.474 (RELEASE) $ CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 1) 1965-05-17 Bulletin 1965 N. I 324 p. 240 (RELEASE) CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 1) 1966-11-28 Bulletin 1966 N. I 527 P.398 (rejection) and the cases cited CF. Supreme Court of Appeal (Civil Division 3) III 1969 N. Bulletin 1969-03-27 278 p.212 (RELEASE

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 38.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: